You guys and girls are the ones that are obsessed with evolution vs creation. Do you want creationists to come here and have friendly debate and discussion or is this a creationist rehabilitation centre?

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

In the science threads it's a place to present, and have critically appraised, evidence.

The reason creos often don't last long here is because they can't stick to the rules and supply evidence.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

You guys and girls are the ones that are obsessed with evolution vs creation. Do you want creationists to come here and have friendly debate and discussion or is this a creationist rehabilitation centre?

Uh, this is a debate site where evolution, creationism, and intelligent design are the principal topics of discussion. Outside of the Coffee House, you should not expect discussion about trick-or-treating for UNICEF. Surely you read the marquee right above the entrance?

As long as you are here, I'd like to ask you a question. In your opinion, what would have been a proper response to your posts about the 5 million frozen mammoths?

If "evidence" which is presented is absurd on its face, and can be readily (and quickly) debunked, commenting on the poor quality of that "evidence" and possibly ridiculing the individual's quality of research and sources should probably be expected.

A similar response would be appropriate if someone presented equally weak "evidence" attempting to debunk an aspect of the Christian faith. We should require that anyone's evidence, whatever position they are arguing, meet the same standards. Someone attempting to argue, for instance, that they know Jesus didn't exist *at all* should be expected to bring forth pretty strong evidence leading to that conclusion, and not be allowed to simply rest on the declaration.

But if someone brings something to the table along the lines of flash frozen mammoths, or human and dinosaur footprints co-mingled (ala the Paluxy tracks) or that Noah's Ark has been discovered (again), they shouldn't be surprised when they receive a broadside.

Coyote made a pretty simple request:

I feel the evidence does not support a global flood, but others obviously disagree. This thread is a place for them to present their evidence.

-emphasis mine

"Evidence" would not simply be assertions like "there was this super awesome cloud of vapor over the earth that totally rained down really, really, really cold water". That would actually just be a hypothesis. Evidence supporting that hypothesis (to my mind) would be something physical corroborating such a thing. We've got a pretty solid understanding of the Earth's climate through the ice ages, covering the period that should include the flood, so evidence brought forward would not only need to corroborate the flood story, but in fact negate much of what we think we know about history based on actual evidence and not simply the narrative of bronze age folklore. Frozen mammoths might be an attempt to do that (ignoring all the inherent problems) but it fails miserably. In fact, those critters confirm our view of natural history and climate.

Because the evidence fails does not mean that people are being treated unfairly or expected to "rehabilitate". If your evidence fails to meet any rational standard, it's your problem. Find something else to bring to the table.

To me, if you can swallow that sort of fairy tale without the tiny voice in your head telling you to dig a bit deeper, you're no different than someone who thinks they have to tear the heart out of a prisoner in order to make the sun rise.

Well seeing how the Bible is a fable and myth, how can there be evidence for something that is false?

Well, maybe all the evidence that suggest that there was an unbroken line of human civilisation during the 'Flood Time' (as Coyote has presented loads of times) was put there by Yahweh as a test of faith?

Would that count as false evidence?

Edited by Larni, : Spellingageing

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

Fable and Myth are not synonymous with "false" and the Bible is far more than just fable and myth (although there is lots of that in the Bible), it is also MYTHOS and laws, and a record of customs and identity building.

But there are still folk that claim there was some recent Biblical Flood.

The issue is one of evidence.

If one of the Biblical Flood myths were true, what evidence would that event leave?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Well seeing how the Bible is a fable and myth, how can there be evidence for something that is false?

As jar states, fables and myths are not strict observations of an actual event. Rather, they try to relate philosophical truths through a story. You need to remember this.

For example, if someone cited Aesop's Fables as evidence for animals talking in past centuries you would be right to laugh at them. Aesop's Fables are not meant to relate a historical occurrence where animals talked to one another. Instead, the Fables were meant to teach people about morals and philosophical truths. The truth that resides in Aesop's Fables has nothing to do with whether or not animals actually talked.

If one of the Biblical Flood myths were true, what evidence would that event leave?

A recent global flood as described would leave a lot of evidence. Some examples:

First, sediments and erosional features would be widespread and easily discerned.

Second, there would be massive discontinuities in fauna and flora as earlier species were killed off worldwide then repopulated from one small area. This would also produce a very distinctive genetic bottleneck.

Finally, archaeological evidence would show many cultures or civilizations which were wiped out by a massive flood at the same time.

Am I the only geek on the forum who reads Nat Geo? I didn't see the mammoth links, below, allready posted on this thread, but forgive me if they already were.

I am simply amazed by these mammoth findings. And although, IMO, it is unethical to bring back extinct animals into a world that cannot support its currently existing animals, I'd still like to see a living woolly mammoth before I die.

Either way, if you had a global flood which wiped out all life except what was on a boat, there would have to be evidence of all terrestrial life and human civilization radiating outward in a very fast pace starting at a specific point in history, the date depending on what fundamentalist website you visit.

The evidence for such a thing should be overwhelming. It wouldn't be a frozen mammoth here or a fossil there. It should be represented worldwide, in every dig, in every core sample, in every population study.

Dig down to a point, and you should find the same markers, complete with a jumble of everything from Dinosaur fossils mixed with Mastadons, horses, human tools and building foundations.

Unless, of course, this catastrophe which apparently involved collapsing vapor canopies, fountains of the deep, whole continents skateboarding along and dividing nearly instantaneously (in terms of geologic time) also cleaned up after itself to give the appearance of a planet and biological processes reaching into deep time.

quote:You guys and girls are the ones that are obsessed with evolution vs creation. Do you want creationists to come here and have friendly debate and discussion or is this a creationist rehabilitation centre?

Creationism is a scientific premise with no alternatives ever put forward. It should not be seen as only representing theologies. In fact I know of no theologies which say anything about the universe's emergence other than Genesis - I know of no statement in Genesis' creation chapter which is not scientific - anyone has one?